Advertisement

PSA 1974 pp 3-13 | Cite as

Unified Theories and Unified Science

  • Robert L. Causey
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 32)

Abstract

Discussions of unified science frequently suppose that the various scientific theories should be combined into one unified theory, and it is usually supposed that this should be done by successive reductions of the various theories to some fundamental theory. Yet, there has been little systematic study of the characteristics of unified theories, and little foundational support for the use of reductions as a unifying procedure.

In this paper I : (a) briefly review some of my previous work on microreductions, (b) state some conditions which are necessary in order for a theory to be unified, (c) argue that when certain identities exist between the elements in the domains of two theories, then the only satisfactory way to combine these two theories into one unified theory is by a micro-reduction, and (d) indicate briefly some further applications and consequences of this work.

Keywords

Unify Theory Causal Explanation True Sentence Briefly Review Sodium Cyanide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Block, N. J. and Fodor, J. A.: 1972, ‘What Psychological States Are Not’, The Philosophical Review 81, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunge, M.: 1967, Scientific Research, Vol. I, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Causey, R. L.: 1969 ‘Polanyi on Structure and Reduction’, Synthese 20, 230–237.Google Scholar
  4. Causey, R. L.: 1972a, ‘Attribute-Identities in Microreductions’, The Journal of Philosophy 69,407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Causey, R. L.: 1972b, ‘Uniform Microreductions’, Synthese 25, 176–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Causey, R. L.: 1974, ‘Laws, Identities, and Reduction’, forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Conference for Formal Methods in the Methodology of Empirical Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
  7. Gendron, B.: 1971, ‘On the Relation of Neurological and Psychological Theories: A Critique of the Hardware Thesis’, in R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen (eds.), PSA 1970, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, pp. 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hull, D.: 1974, Philosophy of Biological Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 139–141.Google Scholar
  9. Kalke, W.: 1969, ‘What is Wrong With Fodor and Putnam’ s Functionalism’, Nous 3, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H.: 1958, ‘Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis’, in J. H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
  11. Schlesinger, G.: 1963, Method in the Physical Sciences, Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Causey
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations